Unsettling because it's not the radioactivity levels in the vicinity of the barrels that is of concern*. It's the solubility of various radionuclides in sea water and the subsequent diffusion over large distances that concerns me. Glassification of spent fuel and other byproducts would tend to confine this stuff, keeping them in one place.

*See https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

Expert systems are basically just overgrown decision trees. They have no relationship to present day transformer architecture.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.

Earlier you responded "exactly" to my statement which included the fact enrichment caps are time limited under JCPOA to 2030. I presume the JCPOA would have been effective at enforcing agreed upon constraints and Iran would not violate it.

Again..
My personal belief after hearing a public statement made by someone on the Iranian side of the JCPOA they were always going for a nuke and JCPOA was seen as a vehicle to that end. It provided the Iranians with sanctions relief giving them money, time and space to pursue all of the necessary industrial process and delivery system productions to enable the regime to become a nuclear weapon state when ready to do so.

That would be this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Trump is an unstable moron.

The rest of *anyhing* he says is bullshit, and while he who asserts must prove, this is the default case. Trump must prove he's not a big ass in a pentagon shape on a t-shirt provided withhis made-in-the-usa TrumpPhone T1 (not available for sale, not made in the US).

Trump is a mem whose time went before it came. He defines meaningless reverse meme. May he rest in peace. There's that Nobel peace prize dangling, but nope, his bellicose belching farting fat-ass will never ever get it.

Man I miss President Obama.

A tool is an item used to in some way ease the required function. A jack lifts the car so a wheel with a good tire can replace the bad one without waiting for Arnold to come by and lift the vehicle. A table-saw cut a 2" x 12" into 2" x 4" and gets you less knotty non-warped boards for a better cost and better product. A cordless drill let's you pre-drill (that's "drill before you drill") and then drill for the head (countersink), then power a screw into it -- all without picking up a screwdriver.

AI, like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreeson are TOOLS. They are of no value until used, must be handled carefully because they can overpower the wrist, and must be properly prompted to get useful results.

However, the tool is not education. Learning to use a tool does not educate beyond exactly that. If you want to be a woodworker, for example, knowing how wood grows, is lumbered, felled, milled, etc. will explain that whole twoby thing and knots. Learning how to run a woodmill or be a tool like Thiel or Andreeson won't.

So yeah, maybe it's time to dumb down America (really the US pretending it's a continent) further. Instead of teaching about slavery, Jim Crow laws, emancipation, LGBTQ+, SCOTUS, the US Constitutions, and our laws... let's just teach how our current ubermasters want us to use their tools.

Peter Thiel is a forum-shopping free-speech hater who killed Buzz because he's gay and hates himself.
Marc Andreeson has money from once backing a good pony (Mozilla) with money he didn't earn. Now he tells others how awesome he is.

Why not just call Donny Trump (Jr or Sr) to join in this miserable group of losers? Remember, group, they may have money, but they're still tools.

That is definitely true, but also raises an interesting point, we have also never evolved a mechanism to ruthlessly remove it for the small energy advantage it would give us. Part of that is because the threshhold conditions are too small, but another is that holding onto some of that old stuff as potential future building blocks might be an advantage in future evolution. Having mechanisms that drive a species into a non-evolving monoculture is almost certainly a genetic dead-end.

Was it ever a theory? It's really just an observation. Although human embryos very definitely do have tails. I mean, you can call it something other than a tail if you want. Proto-tail, temporary tail, vestigial tail, etc. but it's clearly quite real and there. I think you might be conflating someone's exaggerated version of the concept with with the actual reality and rejecting the reality as a consequence kind of like people think that martial arts training doesn't make anyone a better fighter because they are confusing real life martial arts training with an action movie.

No one (mostly) is telling the people who actually study this stuff that they are wrong. They're saying that the headline is wrong about what has actually been shown here. The headline is just clickbait nonsense. The brain isn't suddenly revealed by science as two separate organs or any nonsense like that. There has just been an observation of structure during embryonic development.

Basically, it isn't fiction per se, but is pretty much meaningless. Nobody thinks that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is an "evolutionary advantage". It just demonstrates that we come from a process of evolution where we are changed forms of our direct evolutionary ancestor, they are a changed form of theirs, and so on back to our very earlier ancestors. If you take the tree of life and the set of nodes in it back all the way, that path through is our evolutionary line (mostly, anyway, there are other methods of getting DNA from other branches that mostly apply early on with single celled organisms, etc. but that can still potentially happen even later on). Within that evolutionary line, from node to node things get added, dropped, and modified from our genetics (including what are now called epigenetic factors). For our actual ontogeny (growth from a fertilized gamete to a full version of our species) that means that truncated forms of those ancestors necessarily get expressed in our development. We start as a blastula which is like a ball of cells, then turn into a sort of donut which elongates into a tube, which then develops into all of our internal organs, etc., we take on a vaguely fishlike, then infant amphibian-like form, while we develop a spine, arms and legs and a head, etc. with some of the features that started to express then vanishing (though sometimes not). This was observed early on and stated as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and even back when the term was coined, it was obvious that full ancestral forms weren't being fully expressed, just vestigal traces of them.

As for whether there actually is an evolutionary advantage or not, while no one is really claiming there is, it's not like there isn't potentially an advantage to retaining DNA for features we don't have as adults any more. Evolution through natural selection does happen through mutation, but sometimes that mutation is just activating dormant genes. In general, natural selection uses a toolkit of parts. Some of them ancient, some of them absolutely brand new, and some of them slight modifications of something ancient. An example we could consider are tails. Humans have DNA for tails, and we have then at a certain point in our ontogeny, and sometimes people are still born with them. It is entirely possible that, given time and the right selective pressures, some future descendant species from us could develop tails again from DNA we still have around. So, it could be argued that there's an advantage to the vestigial DNA for producing tails and that expressing it during ontogeny keeps it at the ready, so to speak, so that it can be useful. Mostly though natural selection tends to work on thresholds. For lots of these features, the simple fact is that there's no significant disadvantage to this old stuff hanging around so, even without a potential advantage to keeping it, there's no big disadvantage to it staying. That said, the advantage is that it's intertwined enough with our early development now that any mutations that get rid of it probably have high odds of leading to outright failure of development because, as mentioned, we have built up layers and layers and layers on top of this stuff.

You apparently asked stupid questions. No one was arguing that embryonic development passes through adult, fully formed versions of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Also, no one was arguing that it's some sort of evolutionary advantage. What it actually illustrates is that evolution is an iterative process of building on and modifying what has come before, which is well understood. It's like the idiotic "why haven't men evolved away nipples?" question. You jumped in to "debunk" something that no one was asserting and with what amounts to a silly semantic argument as well.

Originally the misnomer Artificial Intelligence (AI) was applied to complex massive data analysis of stored language tokens (LLMs). That proved better to promote and market what isn't "intelligence" and "artificial" implies there's a "natural" intelligence but what computer does that? I'll call it AI here to keep it short.

AI company leaders in the US want a slowdown in AI development to prevent so-called "rogue" AIs or anything that will annihilate mankind. So far the only things threatening to do that are Donald Trump, and previously Adolph Hitler.

Trump wants AI renamed, mostly because it's too difficult for our stable [aritificial?] genius to spell or pronounce AI, so he wants to call it Super Intelligence. His family is hot on making T-shirts with a pentagon S on it (Pete Hegseth is creaming his shorts) and it will be Super, which is better than what China's AI has because theirs is NOT super, no S or pentagon or anything like that. Hegseth in background audio: Boo-Yeah!!!

I'm so happy we have the best dear leader ever and his own super intelligence will ensure all our AI are belong to him and his family. If you're still waiting for your made-in-America TrumpPhone may I recommend a payphone on the corner. Watch out for Agent Smith in a garbage truck

Soul Coughing declared yesterday that Super Bon Bon is better than Super Intelligence. Step aside; let the man go through.

Credits: Paul Tracy, the 1994 CART broadcast team. Keith Jasinski, Nick Challis, Vivian Tracy, Bonnie Joyce Minagil, Manic, Obi-Wan (he's your only hope) and the Trump family, who is the only super artificial intelligence lacking both superiority and intelligence. Can't wait till Ivanka "develops" that "island" she "discovered" that happens to be an Albanian preserve. But sociopaths with a thick wad of cash ad no intelligence (just Super Intelligence) don't mind that.

What else is new? All of us have been hearing this for north of three years now (more generally decades). Distinctly remember around the ChatGPT 4 release in 2023. There was even a conspiracy making rounds one of the GPT4 era whistleblowers had been assassinated some time later.

When we replay the sensational garbage with what is now considered by everyone as a toy crap model people will rightfully laugh in your face.... but but but today's models are different and not like yesterdays models and so you should really be afraid this time for real... This same grift has been running continuously for the last three years over and over and over again.

There is no credibility left and no reason to give a shit about evidence free opinions of those deliberately waging campaigns of emotional manipulation of the public in the pursuit of simple profit.

Wait I thought they were slowing down? Are they slowing down or is everything going to plaid now because RSI? I'm so confused. Perhaps only the American firms after having all agreed to "slow down" know about RSI... the rest of the world doesn't know about the one weird trick?

In control of what exactly? They asked the model to hack and it hacked. I hear these stories of people giving agents Internet access and letting them on production systems and shit and it goes and blows up their entire operation... I'm just bewildered and puzzled why anyone would ever even think about doing that in the first place. If the answer to "would you let a crazy person" is no... then sure as shit had better be the same of AI. The very notion of control of "AI" is silly and meaningless.

I'm more concerned with the greed and power seeking of those running the American AI firms than I am of inherent risks of technology. Any actual danger from AI is baked into the enabling knowledge and industrial base. It is irrelevant how responsible, well-intentioned or careful any one person or organization is. This notion if only you try really hard and be extra super careful then you can "control" it misses the point entirely.

If the 10%ers keep the hysteria going with the we're all doomed in 4 years time BS I suspect corporations are going to start being torched by the angry mobs they created in earnest. Can almost hear the chants now.... "Clippy will not replace us"

Well then, we should be moving on to super duper intelligence.